Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21295
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:39 am
 


Quote:
LONDON – American athletes risked disqualification by leading a revolt against the International Olympic Committee on Monday and its draconian laws of forbidding competitors from using social media to promote their sponsors.

Spurred on by the outspoken words of members of the United States team, Olympians from around the world launched a Twitter campaign under the hashtags #Rule40 and #WeDemandChange in an attempt to pressure the IOC into action.

Rule 40 is the section in the athletes’ code of conduct that warns anyone flouting the strict guidelines on the use of social media as a promotional tool will be expelled from the Games.

Dozens of athletes responded angrily, including U.S. 400-meter star runner Sanya Richards-Ross.

"I'd love to show my great sponsors love," Richards-Ross said. "I am one of the very fortunate athletes that work with wonderful sponsors during the Olympic year. [This is an] injustice."

Others took to Twitter to voice their displeasure, although most were careful to avoid any direct mention of the companies that endorse them.

The IOC also frowns upon strong criticism of the organization. National committees warned their athletes that any act of dissent, such as the Rule 40 tweets, could be grounds for disqualification.

That did not stop U.S. 20-kilometer race walker Maria Michta, who gave a heartfelt and eloquent description of how the regulations have affected her.

"I have no big brand corporate sponsor who gives me free gear, pays me a salary and gives me a bonus for making it to events like the Olympics," Michta wrote on her personal blog. "My sponsors are my family, my friends, my high school community, the family of race walkers around the country. My sponsor bonus comes from each and every dollar thrown in my bucket, every donation on my website. Those are the sponsors that I represent.

"And because of rules like Rule 40 and others I could not use the image of myself at Olympic Trials or the title U.S. Olympian in any pictures, posts or tweets to fundraise money to help pay for my travel expenses and get my family, the family that has sponsored me from day one, over to London to watch me compete."

The campaign seemed to be gathering pace throughout Monday, with American middle distance runner Leo Manzano complaining about being ordered to remove a photograph of his shoes from his social media page. Others spoke out, as well.

"I am honored to be an Olympian," U.S. javelin thrower Kara Patterson added. "But I can’t tweet about my only sponsor."

The IOC had not yet addressed the issue as of Monday afternoon, but president Jacques Rogge is expected to face questions about it when he visits the Olympic Park on either Tuesday or Wednesday.

The stance of the IOC has attracted criticism before, but the organization claims such measures are necessary to protect the income it receives from its own affiliate sponsors.

"Ambush marketers have, in the past, used their association with athletes to suggest or imply that they have an association with the Olympic Games," reads the code of conduct. "This undermines the exclusivity that Organizing Committees can offer official Games and team sponsors, without whose investment the Games could not happen.

"The implication of an association with the Games through use of athletes is particularly powerful during and immediately before the Games. Participants who do not comply with Rule 40 may be sanctioned by the IOC in accordance with the Team Members’ Agreement which provides for wide ranging sanctions, including amongst other things removal of accreditation and financial penalties."


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympics-- ... nsors.html


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29608
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:57 am
 


Too bad it wasn't a Rule 34 revolt instead. Look it up yourselves, perverts! :twisted:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65088
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:10 am
 


The rule is more or less targeted at Americans given that American athletes are the only ones who solely rely on sponsorships. Thus it is unfair and, thus, I doubt it will change.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5228
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:38 am
 


I think you're reading too much into it Bart. It's targeted at anyone trying to make a buck without the IOC getting their cut. I doubt they thought any further than that.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Boston Bruins


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11907
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:43 am
 


Unsound wrote:
I think you're reading too much into it Bart. It's targeted at anyone trying to make a buck without the IOC getting their cut. I doubt they thought any further than that.


PDT_Armataz_01_37

Because we know how much integrity the IOC has!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21295
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:45 am
 


Unsound wrote:
I think you're reading too much into it Bart. It's targeted at anyone trying to make a buck without the IOC getting their cut. I doubt they thought any further than that.


Yeah, that's the way I read it too.

The IOC is worried that Coke, McDonald's and everyone else might not pay as much (or even bail completely) in the future if athletes can use Twitter and Facebook to promote other brands like Pepsi or Burger King.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3355
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:36 pm
 


Good God their revolts are as lame as their wars, well aside from the American one, that was a revolt. Of all the words the author could have used, somebody decides to embarrass themselves with this doozie.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 501
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:50 pm
 


Revolt is a perfectly good word here. It's a revolt against a stupid unenforceable rule. Thus an attempt to cast off subjugation.

From Dictionary Online:

verb (used without object)
1.
to break away from or rise against constituted authority, as by open rebellion; cast off allegiance or subjection to those in authority; rebel; mutiny: to revolt against the present government.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65088
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:07 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:
Unsound wrote:
I think you're reading too much into it Bart. It's targeted at anyone trying to make a buck without the IOC getting their cut. I doubt they thought any further than that.


Yeah, that's the way I read it too.

The IOC is worried that Coke, McDonald's and everyone else might not pay as much (or even bail completely) in the future if athletes can use Twitter and Facebook to promote other brands like Pepsi or Burger King.


I don't see how it would be wrong for an athlete to thank their sponsors in a tweet or on FB. For some of the athletes their sponsors are their families, churches, and communities, not major corporations. Telling some kid he/she can't post a thank you to their family if the family was their sponsor is just wrong.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21295
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:19 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
bootlegga wrote:
Unsound wrote:
I think you're reading too much into it Bart. It's targeted at anyone trying to make a buck without the IOC getting their cut. I doubt they thought any further than that.


Yeah, that's the way I read it too.

The IOC is worried that Coke, McDonald's and everyone else might not pay as much (or even bail completely) in the future if athletes can use Twitter and Facebook to promote other brands like Pepsi or Burger King.


I don't see how it would be wrong for an athlete to thank their sponsors in a tweet or on FB. For some of the athletes their sponsors are their families, churches, and communities, not major corporations. Telling some kid he/she can't post a thank you to their family if the family was their sponsor is just wrong.


I never said it was wrong - I'm of the opinion that people should be allowed to thank whoever or whatever they choose to. It's the IOC that said it was wrong - and only because it might eat their lunch down the road.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65088
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:41 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:
I never said it was wrong - I'm of the opinion that people should be allowed to thank whoever or whatever they choose to. It's the IOC that said it was wrong - and only because it might eat their lunch down the road.


But is it okay for athletes to thank their sponsors when their sponsor is a government?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5228
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:27 pm
 


i think you're trying really hard to start an argument here bart. :)

So far, all of us agree that it's a stupid rule, we just don't agree that it's been done on purpose to unfairly target american athletes.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:18 pm
 


Twitter and FB.

Never has so much grief been caused. Off the cuff comments that echo around the world.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 50937
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:24 pm
 


So MacDonalds is not paying for ALL the athletes families to come over and house them during the games?
Why the hell is it the "official Olympic sponsor" then? To sponsor WHOM?? The IOC bobo's, who are the only ones that can afford everything themselves?


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3355
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:24 pm
 


So true.

To EB.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.